tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post1871217848939963702..comments2023-06-28T17:05:30.899+01:00Comments on The Literacy Blog: The reading achievement challengeJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13315146014179526480noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-3216014855829051302015-02-08T17:56:56.949+00:002015-02-08T17:56:56.949+00:00The Check is administered to all children in Yr 2 ...The Check is administered to all children in Yr 2 who didn't "pass" in Yr 1. Both the item data and the score data indicate that few kids who weren't taught "right" in Yr 1 did not "gain" or "grow" in Yr 2. On some items the Yr 1, "strugglers" went backwards at the LEA level of analysis. <br /><br />The point that I've been trying to make--here, "there and everywhere" is that the way forward in getting "first class literacy tuition to all children over, say, the first three years of schooling so that they have what would be a rock solid guarantee of being able to read and (pretty much) spell anything and everything" is to look at the available data at the school and class level. <br /><br />(My, that sentence got to be a long challenge between the subject and predicate and the with the other words along the way, but anyone reading your blog who can read all the items on the Screening Check should be able to read/comprehend it. Doing anything different after reading the sentence is a whole nother story.)<br /><br />Every kid differs and at the same time, all kids are the same. Example: one kid will see the word "airplane" for the first time and say, /a/ (as in ah) /i/ (as in in" /p-l-a-n-e (as in eh). The sounds pronounced are nothing like the pronunciation of the word. Yet for this kids the approximations are "enough" for kiddo to say subvocally words to the effect "So that's how this business of reading works." And kiddo says aloud /airplane/. This kid doesn't need any further formal instruction in reading per se.<br /><br />Another kid, who has been biologically or instructionally scuffed, may require "teaching and practice" of the whole gory 170+ Correspondences, as well as syllabication, morphology and punctuation conventions to reach the point where no further instruction in reading per se is required.<br /><br />Each kid is different, but one Alphabetic Code fits all.<br /><br /> Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-79735551817423208882015-02-07T19:04:20.440+00:002015-02-07T19:04:20.440+00:00As always, it's good to hear from you and than...As always, it's good to hear from you and thank you for your comment, Dick.<br />The screening check is not conducted at the end of Y2, by the way. It's done at the end of Y1. Were it to be set for the end of Y2 and be made more wide-ranging, I think I'd go along with you because you're right! It is a powerful tool.<br />Anyway, while I agree with some of what you write - 'whatever they think or say they are doing, there are schools and teachers "out there" who aren't teaching their kids how to go about reading right' - and there are plenty of them, I don't entirely agree with your contention that if kids pass the screening check, they're home and dry.<br />Plenty of children who pass the test can be pretty good on the Basic/Initial Code and be taught (often quite robotically!) a smattering of vowel digraphs. What they don't get is enough systematic teaching of and practice in the explicit idea that we spell sounds in the language in multiple ways. Neither do they get enough of the same in handling polysyllabic words.<br />Now, I'm not arguing that one has to teach every single spelling alternative for every sound. Far from it! After a certain point, most children go on to teach themselves the code. Where I think we may differ in where we need to get to when that point is reached.<br />Of course, this will also depend somewhat on the learner. But I don't see why we can't offer first class literacy tuition to all children over, say, the first three years of schooling so that they have what would be a rock solid guarantee of being able to read and (pretty much) spell anything and everything.<br />Best regards,<br />JohnJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315146014179526480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-86009211511184653472015-02-07T16:16:49.806+00:002015-02-07T16:16:49.806+00:00The thing is, John, you have the solution hiding i...The thing is, John, you have the solution hiding in sight in the UK, and it's much simpler than you and Chenowith imply. <br /><br />The Screening Check, that is being used in England at the end of Year 2 is a much more powerful tool for untangling the confusion regarding how to teach kids to read.<br /><br />The Check is a quick and psychometrically sound way to identify an individual who can handle the English Alphabetic Code--the link between written and spoken language. An individual who can read all 40 items on the test doesn't need any further formal instruction in reading per se. (Yes they will vary in background information, as you note, but that's another instructional matter altogether.)<br /><br />The results of the Yr 1 screening show that the modal score on the test IS 40--the highest possible score on the test. This is unprecedented in conventional standardized testing. But the results have as yet not been examined at the school level, which is where the variation action is.<br /><br />Put simply, whatever they think or say they are doing, there are schools and teachers "out there" who aren't teaching their kids how to go about reading right. <br /><br />The Check has identified the kids who can't read, but the simple act of identifying the schools and teachers who aren't teaching them hasn't been taken.<br /><br />In an era of "evidence based decision making" and "accountability," it's a mind-bogggling situation, but such is life.Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.com